More Hidden Evidence in the Watson Case.
At Trial:
Mr. Antunovic exposed from Mr. Anderson the very real
likelihood that Mr. Anderson was mixed up between the mystery ketch and the much
different looking scow the Alliance, with its lack of sails and ropework of an
international yacht. The Judge appears to reject Mr. Antunovic’s s claim of a
disparity between what the defence could employ to lead witnesses, compared to
the Crown. Reading the notes of evidence tends to swing the argument in favour
of Mr. Antunovic. Set out in the RPOM proper indicates that there was a tension
in the trial that was not always inert. An example was the interruption by the
Judge of the opening address by the defence. The reversal of his decision to
not allow the highly prejudicial evidence of Mr. and Mr. C. The information by
Peter Firmin could have caused Judge Heron to maintain the embargo on the
evidence of Mr. and Mr. C and place one on the secret witness A and B (the prison
inmates.)
Also, noteworthy from the Anderson cross-examination was
his admission that he had met with a prosecutor before the trial for an hour
or ‘maybe’ more. This continues the suggested pattern of Ms. Crutchley, having
been named in a job sheet which exposed deleted and amended statements in the
Tony Kiernan file, as being within the knowledge of the prosecution,
specifically that Mr. Anderson was not going to ‘shift’ on his evidence of
putting Mr. Watson on the Blade alone – the fundamental problem for the
prosecution. Note the number of times police went back and back to Anderson. Also, where Mr. Kiernan attests now, that he
(as the job sheet discloses) had not only claimed to have seen a ketch but also
drew it for police who removed all trace of this, apart from (importantly for
Mr. Watson) the job sheet which proves Kiernan’s claim of stating the original
existence of the mystery ketch, and his denouncement of it not being the
Alliance. It was suggested by police to Mr. Mc Noe (another person, who along
with his wife saw the ketch) just before he gave evidence that a long time had passed,
and he should forget about the ketch (see Doubt doco). There is good evidence
to show across a range of witnesses’ material being deleted and changed. There
is also now the confirmation of the pressure put on Ted and Eyvonne Walsh to
say there was no ketch, in fact, Mr. Walsh had indicated to him, the same as
it was to Guy Wallace, that the pair were suspects unless they changed their
ketch evidence. Another job sheet cited earlier mentions ‘questions’ to
witnesses before the trial from the prosecution indicating the depth of the
prosecution's involvement with witnesses whose testimony changed.
The new affidavit of Eyvonne Walsh in which Eyvonne
describes that her late husband was told by police that he was one of the 3Ws,
that is Watson, Wallace, and Walsh who were the killers or accomplice’s and that
he needed to essentially co-operate by forgetting about the ketch to save his
own skin. Note here the re-examination of Ted Walsh at the trial, its powerful
and lucid finish. The details in Eyvonne’s affidavit of pictures of a ketch
taken on the 2nd of January 1998 were taken from her and Ted but
never returned.
Rachel McKay appeared on the Doubt documentary saying that
after her police statement was released she found that her information that had
been contained in it, mentioning a ketch, the possible missing couple, and the
possible mystery man, was deleted. Rachel McKay has since forwarded a copy of
the statement and included a letter giving details of her actual evidence given
to the police and the accidental nature of acquiring her statement in recent
years. This is found in the attachments and provides further evidence of secret
‘cleansing’ of information from the police and prosecution files along with her
explanation why she asked for her statement many years later, as being part of the preparation for her appearance in the Doubt documentary. Junior police were not
acting without direction, long after the inquiry was over Mr. Pope, by then a
Deputy Commissioner had more direct control of deflecting legitimate inquiries
or information away. The letter to the MRG appears to be a deliberate lie he
misunderstood the potential consequences of, he also failed to report on the
investigation he instructed Mr. and Mrs. Futter he would give them an update
about.
The unexplainable #13727 document filed by ex-Detective John
Rae recording dialogue alleged to have happened with a David Smith about a
ketch sighting involving the boarding of the missing couple:
In this document, Mr. Rae reports a conversation about a
statement that is not known to have been discovered to the defence. The
conversation/job sheet is dated 14/12/98 and oddly refers to a statement
alleged to be hearsay with no explanation why another police officer would have
recorded a hearsay statement. Mr. Rae goes into detail with David Smith that the
described ketch was, apparently like Mr. Smith, not in Furneaux over the new
year period and says the shape of the stern ‘as described (by who, where and
when is not mentioned)’ as the ‘inability to bend wood to match this
description.’ And says He told him about the ‘Hans Anderson boats.’
Mr. Rae reports that Mr. Smith said the ketch was pretty old
looking to him and that he, Mr Rae, ‘explained that they were made of
fiberglass but made to look like wood.’
It finishes with ‘He accepted the explanation as given.’
Why Mr. Rae would take the time to speak to one witness when
many 100s were simply ignored requires examination, as does the oddness of the
job sheet itself. The ability to bend wood is at least centuries old and
remains an established craft.
Some of Donald Anderson's information was deleted, one whole
deletion was the undated doc # 13696. Which by number could date that document
as being possible after the Watson arrest but before the end of the same year.
The applicant can never know what was deleted in the 945 fully deleted
documents, the reviewer may also never know but the applicant expects there
will be a vigorous effort made to find deleted and changed material. The
applicant considers that the Reviewer will comment on the practice of deleted
documents rather than saving them to the file as it is common in miscarriages
and a practice that must stop.
The Anderson doc #20470 was said to show to Bruce Davidson
with the deletions in that document intact. It was a document filed by Mr. Fitzgerald on 5/8/98. The only confirmation for that on file is from ex-police
member Mr. Rae.
Doc #40977 29/4/98 Anderson
interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald put to Anderson that he had not mentioned taking
a person out to the Blade in the first 3 statements, #10070 5/1/98, #10065 8/1/98,
#10406 201/1/98. In fact, Mr. Anderson had not been asked about that. He had
been asked about a ketch primarily and the missing couple. In his first
statement, he said ‘I can recall the ketch that you are looking for, although I
couldn’t give you a description as I didn’t take much notice of it. In his
second statement, he said ‘I can vaguely remember seeing the double masted
sailing boat. It was anchored on its own about 30 metres from the raft of boats
which included the Nugget (same relative place as described by Robert Mullens
and near the Kalaugher/Kirkwood mystery ketch plotted position).
‘I can recall going around the
back and seeing a lot of gear on the stern’ In his 3rd statement
Anderson says, ‘I am sure the vessel I was thinking of was definitely the
Alliance.’
There was no emphasis on the point about the Blade or Mr. Watson. It should be noted again that Alliance was a motor-powered scow with
flat sides, a flat bottom able to negotiate shallow water moorings, and no
rails but a rather low bulwark. It did not have a lot of ropework to the rear.
The Alliance was known to many locals including those working at the Lodge.
There appears to be no explanation why Fitzgerald would put to Anderson as
having left out of his first 3 statements something that had never been put to
him. Fitzgerald asks Mr. Anderson to show him the photographs of the yachts
where he had ‘taken the male to’. Anderson indicates an area around Mina
Cornelia and Rippa (where the Blade was agreed by the Defence and Prosecution
to have been rafted up.) Fitzgerald writes that he explained to Anderson that
he still believed it unusual that he had not mentioned this trip in any of his
first 3 statements, despite that he had not taken the statements and the
purpose of the statements are clear to any reader. The Crown or police did not
want Mr. Watson being put back on his sloop alone, for the Crown case he needed
to be the mystery man with the couple, and for the ketch to be the blade.
Fitzgerald did not prevail in seeking Anderson to change his statement.
In an earlier statement taken from Guy Wallace #20931 on
6/3/98, Mr. Fitzgerald placed a pen over the portholes of the ketch that Wallace
had drawn and his hand over the rear mast before showing Wallace a photo of
Watson’s yacht. He asked if they looked similar. He reported that Mr. Wallace:
‘Stated that they looked very
similar, but added that to take the mast and portholes out was too much of a
difference and that he knows he dropped them off to a ketch’
Mr. Fitzgerald was pointedly engaged in having one witness
say he had not dropped off Mr. Watson alone (because he had never mentioned that
in his first 3 statements) to the Blade and another witness to ‘imagine’ that
the ketch without one mast and portholes looked the same as the Blade. That
certain police (including Mr. Fitzgerald in many examples) sought to have
witnesses change their statements is evident. The question for the Reviewer is
to determine why and the legitimacy of such behaviour.
The (name suppressed) deletions referred to the RPOM proper where job
sheets by Mr. Fitzgerald record changes (and deletions) during which the course
of interviews with Mr. Fitzgerald the witness substantially changes his
statements to disfavour Mr. Watson.
At the end of the Kalaugher/Wallace interview (tape3) where Mr. Wallace speaks of his dealings with police during the Watson case, and where he
reveals an NZ police officer visited him in Cairns in 2001 seeking him to agree
to sign documentation that he had never seen the Ketch. At the end of tape 3, Mr. Wallace mentions hearing a scream around the time of 5am, as the Reviewer will
know there are many witnesses recorded in the RPOM proper as having heard a
scream at approximately the same time.
The affidavit/statement of Eyvonne Walsh gives details of
what she and Ted endured because of maintaining they saw the mystery ketch. She
also mentions photographing the mystery ketch on the 2nd of January
turning the photos and negatives over to the police and never seeing them again.
This is not 2 prisoners singing for their supper, but rather a collection of
honest people recollecting events from which a clear pattern emerges of a ketch
and Mr. Watson returning to his sloop alone.
The burying of the Futter, McKay, and Karena
evidence helpful to Scott Watson.
The reviewer is asked to reflect that there was no tangible
evidence against Mr. Watson at the stage, witnesses were still reporting having
seen a 2 masted ketch with brass portholes and being pressured or ignored for
doing so, the search for a ketch had been long shut down according to the material
here, in the RPOM proper, and according to comments in the IPCA reports. That
gives pause to consider if police were driven to prove a case against Mr. Watson
and no one else despite a dearth of evidence. In the coming months of 1998 entire
statements would disappear or be changed. The forgoing situations with
statements and job sheets, only detrimentally impact one person – Scott Watson.
A Miscarriage of Justice is apparent, the case is shot with no prospect of ever
proceeding again against Mr. Watson – as it should never have done 20 years ago
when Donald Anderson persisted with the truth that he dropped off Scott Watson
alone, and when Noel Reeves denied Watson had stolen is dingy and Dave Mahony
refused to say he heard an outboard in or near the raft up in the small hours.
There was no second trip by Mr. Watson and at least 2 men refused to lie about
that.
Important Note
The reviewer has the MRG report, Doubt documentary, and
other footage of John and Karen Futter who rang police after a disturbing
sighting of what may have been the couple on the 5th of January in an
isolated part of the sounds. This sighting is recalled in detail on pages 51-53
of the MRG.
The report notes that John and Karen were told by police when
asking for an update on the outcome of their evidence being investigated that
they had never called the police. They quickly prove they had. The report later
records that in 2005 John wrote to police recording his information again. In
due course, he heard from Mr. Pope that on the completion of his inquiry he would
formally respond. The promised response from Mr. Pope never materialised.
The Reviewer should note page 56 of the current MRG report
detailing a report by an international psychic, Margaret Birkin who indicated
the bodies of the missing couple were lying in about 100ft of water directly
between Maud Island and Tawhitinui Island in the Tawhitinui Reach, Pelorous
Sound. The exact coordinates she gave were latitude 41.02.472S and longitude
173.50.440E. Other details are revealed which include that bodies were said to
be wrapped in sail and weighted down with a chain and an anchor. A computer
engineer, Peter Luke, dragged a metal detector over the area of the
coordinates when the metal detector went off the scale.
Mr. Pope according to the current MRG report appears to have
misled MRG researchers as to documentation he claimed to have discovered to the
defence as copies of letters in the RPOM proper show. His indication to Mr. and
Mrs. Futter that they would be notified of the outcome of their complaint/report
to police in 2005 was not honoured.
Police undertook a search of Cook Strait for bodies on
fundamentally flawed data. In the circumstances of this case, the search may
have been orchestrated to implant in the public mind that the bodies were
dumped in Cook Strait despite police not finding them That was a prejudicial
implication against the Petitioner whose boat was alleged to have been seen
there.
The Petitioner believes he has fully demonstrated his
complete innocence but considers that if police, as it appears, undertook a
search to purportedly both satisfy the families of the missing couple and the
public, then it would appear logical that searches should be considered in the
areas identified by the Futter’s and by Peter Luke. Whilst Peter Luke undertook
his metallic scan because of information from a psychic, something police have
done over the years, he had specific coordinates and did strike a reading. The
Futter’s meanwhile is credible folk, very clear about their recollections and
supported by having sent their information to police with other information
revealed in the MRG report and the media. It must be fully expected that the
petitioner sees the police inactivity of the Futter, and similar files, as the
continuing unwillingness for police to listen to witnesses and potential
witnesses, even today when all evidence points away from your Petitioner.
The Petitioner’s plea does not rely on the lost couple’s
bodies or traces of them being found in a position or found at all, but he
points out that police only undertook a search supportive of their false case
against him. For the benefit of the Hope and Smart families, and the public
generally, he asks if is not time that information unsuitable to the case made
against himself, should be thoroughly investigated with the same vigour he
expects to be applied to the tampered with evidence and evidence manipulation
by police and Prosecution which resulted in his 20 years of imprisonment. It
may take specially sworn constables to do this.
